Allowed

Sirajdeen v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Dec 2020CRL OP(MD)/13014/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail petition where the petitioner sought anticipatory bail but had surrendered. The court converted the petition into a bail application and enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to conditions, deeming continued incarceration unwarranted after surrender.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to conditions: execution of bond with two sureties, appearance for interrogation, no tampering with evidence/witnesses, and no absconding. Breach attracts ac

Sirajdeen Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.13014 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 07/12/2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.13014 of 2020

¶7

Sirajdeen ... Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶8

¶9

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sholavandan Police Station, Madurai District. Crime No.145/2019. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.K.Navaneetharaja, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson (Crl.Side), Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

¶11

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.145 of 2019 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶12

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶14

The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 486 and 420 of I.P.C., and Sections 103(a) and 104 of the Trade Marks Act in Crime No.145 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The petitioner's earlier petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed in view of the registration of a similar case against the petitioner earlier. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner is said to have surrendered before the respondent.

¶16

4.Therefore, I am of the view that the continued incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted. The petitioner had surrendered on 06.12.2020 and is said to be confined in Sub Jail, Dindigul. The petition for anticipatory bail is converted into a bail petition by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taking note of the subsequent development.

¶17

1/3

¶18

CRL OP(MD). No.13014 of 2020

¶19

5.Considering the overall circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is released on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.

¶21

(ii) the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police as and when required for the interrogation.

¶22

(iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶23

(iv) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶24

[v] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶25

[vi] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶26

/ TRUE COPY / / /2020

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶28

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶29

¶30

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VADIPATTI.

¶31

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

¶32

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SHOLAVANDAN POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶34

2/3

¶35

CRL OP(MD). No.13014 of 2020

¶36

4 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, DINDIGUL.

¶37

5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶38

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶39

ORDER

¶40

¶41

CRL OP(MD) No.13014 of 2020 Date :07/12/2020

¶42

rmi

¶43

JM/PN/SAR III/07.12.2020/3P/6C

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶45

3/3

Sirajdeen v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirajdeen v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Syed Mohamed Vs the Inspector of Police

V. Senthil Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

V. Raja Vs R. Sakthivel

Narasimhan Vs The Inspector of Police

Rani Vs The Inspector of Police

Rathidevi Vs S.Vadivel